Sony A6000

[tommui987]

I'm suggesting something that would save you money! ;)

 

Dave

 

Will wonders never cease! :-)

 

Tom gets all enthusiastic about the 18mm-105mm And of course being old and needing a verstile zoom, I get it and got rid of my Sigma 19mm and 30mm, it being duplication of effort.

 

Then of course seller's remorse - no prime lens between the 12mm Rokinon and the 50mm Sony.

 

Now Justin comes up touting with the 35mm Sony with Dave's concurrence.

 

And DW wants a zoom instead of the prime Sigma, five decades plus of marriage, I get her a 28-70mm Sony.-she who must be obeyed.

 

Two thoughts - aruggh! and it's only money.

 

Anyone know a good Chapter-7 attorney?

[donaldsc]

Should probably buy a Powerball ticket....

 

 

Dave

 

Actually I figured out that when I win the big one, I have to spend $123,000 per day every single day to zero out the winnings before I die. And this does not account for any money I may earn on the unspent parts of the winnings.

 

DON

[pierces]

Actually I figured out that when I win the big one, I have to spend $123,000 per day every single day to zero out the winnings before I die. And this does not account for any money I may earn on the unspent parts of the winnings.

 

DON

 

That would only be a week or so if you spent it on booze and cigars....

 

:)

 

Dave

[wmjivey]

With everyone talking about lens I am surprised nobody is lusting over the 70-200f4 that Justin uses to make everyone jealous over his BIF. I know what I am saving for :)

 

John

[pierces]

"Lust" is such a strong word, John. I think you diminish yourself by admitting lust for a material object. I, on the other hand, claim a passionate and intense desire and a breathless craving for said lens. See the difference?

 

And, yes, there is a ceramic pig on my shelf with a picture of the lens on it...and a question mark for the body upgrade. Whichever comes first.

 

;)

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

I do love that 70-200mm. And not only for BIF - though that is one of the primary reasons I bought it, to photography wildlife and birds with the A6000. I've found it's lovely for portraits and other detail shots too...

 

A street performer at Disney World - the lens is super sharp and has lovely creamy bokeh to blur out the crowds behind:

 

A real challenge for the camera and lens - I went to a stunt show at night, and during a lights-out scene with the stuntman running with a torch as the only light illuminating him, I needed to track focus at night at F4 and ISO12,800 to get a 1/500 shutter speed enough to freeze the action. At ISO12,800 it's a little grainy, but I actually like the grain in this case as it adds a little realism and grittiness to the scene:

 

Even the occasional landscape/scenic:

 

And the occasional macro-type closeup, like a flower:

 

Hey, if I win the Powerball, I'll even buy a few FE70-200mm F4 lenses for you guys who are lusting after them! :)

[tommui987]

I

 

Hey, if I win the Powerball, I'll even buy a few FE70-200mm F4 lenses for you guys who are lusting after them! :)

 

Thanks! Puritanical Hawaii doesn't allow the sale of lottery tickets here!

 

Like that "Indiana Jones" shot.

[c230k]

Do use use any filters on your 70-200mm F4? Have one on the way, great to be retired and have a hobby and friends to help me spend it lol. Also did you every buy a cover to use to hide the white? Seen them advertised in different colors.

 

THANKS JUSTIN

 

Tom :cool::cool:

[zackiedawg]

Do use use any filters on your 70-200mm F4?

 

No filters on mine. I do use the lens hood religiously - since I'm often shooting in bright Florida or Caribbean sun - it's a nice deep hood with a nice black lining so it does a great job with flare, contrast, fade, etc.

 

Also did you every buy a cover to use to hide the white? Seen them advertised in different colors.

 

I leave it 'naked'...the white also plays advantages in the hot Florida sun and climate, as it stays nice and cool to the touch. It's especially noticeable in the summer when it's 100 degrees out in the swamp - my big Tamron 150-600mm gets quite warm to the touch (being all black) while the 70-200mm keeps cool.

[c230k]

Thanks for the update.

Now have my 3 lens to cover my range and all F4

 

10-18mm F4

18-105mm F4

70-200mm F4 full frame and 105-300mm for my A6000

 

35mm 1.8 portrait

18-200mm wife to use with ease.

8mm for fun lol

 

Thanks to all for your support and valuable information.

 

Tom :cool:

[pierces]

This is from a Fuji presentation. Their response to Nikon's anti-mirrorless campaign was a was a stroke of genius!

 

 

Considering that the A6000 is considerably smaller and lighter than the X-Pro2, I could add a bag of pretzels to that illustration!

 

:)

 

Dave

[havoc315]

Except that it was greatly exaggerated... unless those 2 cans of beer are actually empty.

[pierces]

Except that it was greatly exaggerated... unless those 2 cans of beer are actually empty.

 

I just thought it was funny. Then you had to stir my interest.

 

D500 + 24-70 (assumed shadow illustration) 860G + 900g = 1760g

 

XT-1 + 16-50 490g + 195g = 685g

 

Difference = 1075g

 

Liter of beer = 1000g (beer basically equals water which is 1 kg/l) + 20g (ish) each for the cans.

 

Not too exaggerated.

 

I realize that the Nikon lens is not the smaller kit lens that the Fuji is sporting, but for illustrative purposes I think they made their point pretty well.

 

And I still think it's funny! :)

 

Dave

Edited January 15, 2016 by pierces

[zackiedawg]

Throw in the A6000 for 344g and 16-50 lens for 116g, totalling 460g, and you can almost squeeze in a double quarter pounder with cheese, to go with those beers. ;)

[havoc315]

I just thought it was funny. Then you had to stir my interest.

 

D500 + 24-70 (assumed shadow illustration) 860G + 900g = 1760g

 

XT-1 + 16-50 490g + 195g = 685g

 

Difference = 1075g

 

Liter of beer = 1000g (beer basically equals water which is 1 kg/l) + 20g (ish) each for the cans.

 

Not too exaggerated.

 

I realize that the Nikon lens is not the smaller kit lens that the Fuji is sporting, but for illustrative purposes I think they made their point pretty well.

 

And I still think it's funny! :)

 

Dave

 

I agree it's funny... But why would one compare a 16-50 and-c kit lens with a 24-70 full frame lens?

It would be like comparing a Honda sedan with a Ford truck, and concluding that Hondas are smaller than Fords.

 

Both Fuji and Nikon make an aps-c 55-200, for example. So try the Nikon d5500 with 55-200, compared to the Fuji with 55-200, compared to the D500 with 55-200.

You actually find the d5500 combo is the lightest. The d500 combo is the heaviest -- but not by that much in total. I believe by about 200 grams in total.

 

While it's an amusing graphic, I think it does a disservice to mirrorless. 5 years ago, buyers thought they could compromise-- get mirrorless, not as good as a dslr, but smaller. But they were mostly smaller because they had smaller sensors. The biggest mirrorless sensors were aps-c, with aps-c designed lenses. So on average, they were significantly smaller than dslrs.

 

But now, with full frame mirrorless, with premium lenses as opposed to small slow kit zooms, the cameras are only slightly smaller than equivalent dslrs. Take the a6000 with 70-200/4 compared to the Nikon d5500 with 70-200/4. The a6000 is only about 10-20% lighter. Not a huge difference. And with that weight, the Nikon gets double the battery life. (I love my a6000 but it feels like I'm changing batteries every 5 seconds).

 

Because of the old narrative -- mirrorless are inferior but they are smaller -- I see a lot of CaNikon users for example, say they looked at the a7, but realized it wasn't that much smaller. So once realizing it wasn't much smaller, there was no point in considering mirrorless.

 

And this misses the modern advantages of mirrorless -- the a6000 for example, IMO, may be the best consumer level aps-c camera on the market. And the small size being only the icing on the cake. (From an enthusiast and pro point of view, it's still held back by the lens selection, lack of weather sealing, poor auto ISO implementation and some other factors).

 

As someone who shoots mirrorless but also full frame dslr, I see a long list of mirrorless advantages, and size isn't really high on the list.

[Babycat]

Size and weight were never factors in my decision to go mirrorless. Canon and Nikon had gone stagnant and I had outgrown what I had (Canon Rebel T4i). I was hungry for something new and somewhat future proof. After having already invested in Canon glass, I thought I was snared by Canon but upon learning that third party adapters (which obviously add weight) worked great with the new Sony A7R2, I bit the bullet. I don't think that mirrorless can quite yet replace traditional DSLR cameras because they just aren't quite as fast yet but the image quality is there imo. Let's not even discuss video.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Babycat

[pierces]

Did I mention that I thought it was funny?

 

Didn't mean to start a holy war.

 

Dave

[Babycat]

I see it as a fun and informative discussion. 🤓

[pierces]

I agree it's funny... But why would one compare a 16-50 and-c kit lens with a 24-70 full frame lens?

 

Because they were making a humorous point! Making a point doesn't always have to include rock-solid facts established beyond a shadow of doubt. (Ask Geico.)

 

Please understand that I don't disagree with most of your points. I am just a little surprised at the level of concern for the reputation of mirrorless cameras seemingly threatened by what was a humorous comparison presented in a product introduction to elicit a laugh from the audience....as it did for me. It wasn't a serious comparison, even though the math in the cherry-picked examples worked out.

 

I had a funny joke about a panda shooting a gun in a restaurant and explaining why he did it, but since I also realize that pandas are typically unarmed and unable to speak, I'll keep it to myself to avoid controversy... ;)

 

Dave

[c230k]

Has anyone bought the battery grip for the A6000?

Likes and dislikes.

 

Was thinking on buying for my A6000 to use with my NEW Sony 70-200mm F4. Better balance to use with a big lens.

 

Thanks

 

Tom :cool:

[havoc315]

Because they were making a humorous point! Making a point doesn't always have to include rock-solid facts established beyond a shadow of doubt. (Ask Geico.)

 

Please understand that I don't disagree with most of your points. I am just a little surprised at the level of concern for the reputation of mirrorless cameras seemingly threatened by what was a humorous comparison presented in a product introduction to elicit a laugh from the audience....as it did for me. It wasn't a serious comparison, even though the math in the cherry-picked examples worked out.

 

I had a funny joke about a panda shooting a gun in a restaurant and explaining why he did it, but since I also realize that pandas are typically unarmed and unable to speak, I'll keep it to myself to avoid controversy... ;)

 

Dave

 

I didn't say I had a high level of concern. It is indeed humorous... But it's also misleading. In the big picture, I think it hurts mirrorless more than it helps mirrorless.

 

It's fine to use humor to make a point... But one would expect the point to have truth behind it.

I could do a presentation and take the Nikon d5500, adding a small prime lens. And show its much much smaller than a A7rii+70-200/4. And show that dslrs are much smaller and lighter than mirrorless.

 

I've seen a lot of people hear the hype about mirrorless... But then get surprised, finding the systems bigger than they expected. Realistic expectations are important, and marketing of the real advantages.

[c230k]

Depend on which mirrorless camera you compare. lol

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2294070

 

Tom :cool:

Edited January 18, 2016 by c230k

[pierces]

Has anyone bought the battery grip for the A6000?

Likes and dislikes.

 

Was thinking on buying for my A6000 to use with my NEW Sony 70-200mm F4. Better balance to use with a big lens.

 

Thanks

 

Tom :cool:

 

Considering... Have a wedding scheduled in June and thought dual batteries would be a plus.

 

Pros: Battery capacity, vertical shutter release, balance and grip.

 

Cons: USB shutter release control looked cumbersome.

 

Gary Fong did an unboxing video:

 

 

Dave

[tommui987]

Got a message re:refurbished lens selling for $150 on e-**y.

 

Got one about a year ago - pretty decent lens - though I lust for the Zeiss 70-200!

[c230k]

Thanks to Justin, bought the Sony 70-200mm f4 Oss. Love this lens, here is my first picture with Sony A6000. Also have the Sony 18-200mm, great for a walk around lens and a lot smaller.

 

 

 

Tom :cool:

Edited January 18, 2016 by c230k